Steady state theory

[ACG52]

The first link is also concerned with the distribution of red giants in the M67 cluster, and concludes that

"For the 7 clusters of the second group, no effect is visible. These clusters are either not old enough (8.45 less than logt less than 9.25) or, more probably, the radial extension of the existing photometric studies is too small. Simulation with real data tends to favor the latter explanation"

Edited August 6, 2012 by ACG52

[EMField]

http://fr.wikipedia....es_NGC_7319.jpg

 

takes 20 seconds to come up with jut a few, need more?

[ACG52]

What do you think you're showing?

 

You can't see the black hole because it's too small. A 4 million solar mass black hole has an event horizon of 44 million kilometers. To put that into perspective, at perigee, Mercury is 46 million km from the sun. You don't see that at 26,000 lys. You see the effects in the surrounding gases, which is what the jets are.

 

This sounds like the Plasma Universe theory. http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/category/science-culture/cranks-crackpots/

[EMField]

I am showing the quasars he wanted to see that are just as close as the galaxies 1) that one is in front of and 2) that the others are connected to by filaments. The torus image is an infrared image of the center of the Milky-Way. Maybe it sounds like plama as 99% of space is plasma?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/news/electric-atmosphere.html

NASA seems to be thinking the current theories on space must not be very good ones scince in their own words: "We need models to help predict hazardous events in the belts and right now we are aren’t very good at that." and " But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma."

 

Personally I can't wait for the data to start coming in, how about you?

[David Levy]

Thanks All

Please, try to think freely and open your mind to the concrete evidences as follow:

 

The center of the Milky way galaxy is full of young forming stars. "The region where the Scutum–Centaurus Arm are connects to the bar of the galaxy is rich in star-forming regions".

 

The stars are getting older as move outwards. "Across the Milky Way, metallicity is higher in the galactic centre and decreases as one moves outwards".

 

Hence, the direct outcome is that the stars are moving outwards as they became older.

 

The sun is an example of a middle age star. It also moves outwards as all the stars do.

 

After quite long time all the stars will get to the edge of the spiral arms.

 

From this point they will be emited from the galaxy and joine one of the dwarf galaxies which orbit the Milky way.

 

As it is stated, those galaxies contain a very old stars: "two small irregular galaxies orbiting the Milky Way,the Large Magellanic Cloud has a metallicity about forty per cent that of the Milky Way, while the Small Magellanic Cloud has a metallicity about ten per cent that of the Milky Way". (Lower metalicity – Older age). One more example - Ursa Minor Dwarf dwarf elliptical galaxy: " The galaxy consists mainly of older stars and there appears to be little to no ongoing star formation in the Ursa Minor Dwarf galaxy"

 

 

The outcome is clear:

In order to get the mass which is needed for the new forming stars in the center of the galaxy, there must be a mechanism which generates this new requested matter. Therefore, Fred Hoyle is fully correct with his theory of steady state: by Wikipedia - "In steady state views,new matter is continuously created as the universe expands".

Edited August 6, 2012 by David Levy

[IM Egdall]

Ya, but . . . space between galaxy clusters is expanding. Space inside galaxy clusters is not expanding because spcaetime curvature (gravity) within clusters overcomes expansion forces.

 

So if new material is formed inside galaxies, how does this produce expansion outside galaxy clusters?

[Airbrush]

"The stars are getting older as move outwards. "Across the Milky Way, metallicity is higher in the galactic centre and decreases as one moves outwards".

 

Hence, the direct outcome is that the stars are moving outwards as they became older.

 

The sun is an example of a middle age star. It also moves outwards as all the stars do."

 

You are misinterpreting Wikipedia. You think the stars themselves are moving outwards. Wiki does not say that. As YOU move outwards observing the stars the metallicity is lower. That is only a figure of speech in the English language. As WE move outwards (in our analysis) we find lower metallicity stars. That does not mean we are flying outwards, our inspection moves outwards. Wiki is speaking figuratively. You are taking Wiki literally. What is your first language?

Edited August 6, 2012 by Airbrush

[MigL]

EMfield, the number of quasars, or active galaxies, is much higher at distances of 10 Gly ( 10 billion yrs ago ). There is probably very few if any within a couple of hundred million light years, and if there are they are probably due to galactic collisions or other abnormalities which awaken the dormant central black hole.

 

Maybe you should do a search for quasars and active galaxies on Wiki rather than looking up pretty pictures.

Edited August 6, 2012 by MigL

[EMField]

The matter is already there, it exists in vast clouds of dust and plasma, clouds so vast and dense you can but barely peer 13 Billion light-years into it. http://www.space.com/5348-view-universe-suddenly-bright.html

Dust and plasma in the ISM so thick that it hides 70% of edge on galaxies because the dust around them is so thick they are already 50% dimmer. There needs no creation of non-existing matter.

 

They are shifted to the red due mostly to the electron density of the stuff they are made of, plasma, as has been demonstrated in actual laboratory experiments, not just theory as some only have, and the further one goes out the younger is the light reaching us, and hence the redder is this light. Now, since red-shift is clearly the electron density of plasma, then newly ejected but close quasars will have the same redshift as older but further away quasars when you add in this dust so thick it hides 70% of edge on galaxies. If you can comprehend what that imports to this theory among Dark Matter, Dark Energy and the list goes on. So when you get the mass calculations corrected, let me know what they say and we can have scientific discussions. And don't forget to add some more mass when you finish adding that blocked by dust, you can add that blocked by light.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2287

[ACG52]

This is just another version of the long debunked Plasma Universe.

 

 

[EMField]

Yah debunked, you mean unanswered. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420 : http://adsabs.harvar...APS..APR.K1019B : http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf But that might not fit your theory so just discard it like normal. Long debunked as in a NASA approved report in 2011? Or long debunked as in LIGOS unsuccessful search for gravitational waves? Or perhaps those darn elusive WIMPS? Lol, you just keep believing that, but NASA tends to agree with those people.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/...atmosphere.html

 

"Beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma. "

And as for your models NASA has this to add: "We need models to help predict hazardous events in the belts and right now we are aren't very good at that." So yah, you just keep believing in those models that predict nothing correctly.

Edited August 7, 2012 by EMField

[somecallmegenius]

This is just another version of the long debunked Plasma Universe.

 

 

 

Hmm. I just went to:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

 

And the word plasma was not mentioned even once in the article.

 

Even though many flaws have been found with this theory, and I don't believe in it myself, your reply is very presumptive. The Plasma universe is pretty much separate from the soon to be debunked SST, and any overlap that may exist is not essential, otherwise it would have been mentioned at least once in the wikipedia article.

[EMField]

Plasma is only one aspect of it, do not forget what makes the plasma a plasma. But your Big Bang can no longer rely on red-shift = distance. It is an inherent affect of the plasma itself. Let us see what wiki has to say:

 

http://en.wikipedia....a_%28physics%29

"Plasmas are by far the most common phase of matter in the universe, both by mass and by volume. All the stars are made of plasma, and even the interstellar space is filled with a plasma, albeit a very sparse one."

 

Indeed, observations show that this plasma is so sparse that it blocks 70% of edge on galaxies because in the galaxies themselves it already blocks 50% of the light. http://www.space.com...nly-bright.html

 

Again theory does not meet observations.

 

 

"Quasineutrality of a plasma requires that plasma currents close on themselves in electric circuits. Such circuits follow Kirchhoff's circuit laws and possess a resistance and inductance. These circuits must generally be treated as a strongly coupled system, with the behavior in each plasma region dependent on the entire circuit. It is this strong coupling between system elements, together with nonlinearity, which may lead to complex behavior. Electrical circuits in plasmas store inductive (magnetic) energy, and should the circuit be disrupted, for example, by a plasma instability, the inductive energy will be released as plasma heating and acceleration. This is a common explanation for the heating that takes place in the solar corona. Electric currents, and in particular, magnetic-field-aligned electric currents (which are sometimes generically referred to as "Birkeland currents"), are also observed in the Earth's aurora, and in plasma filaments."

 

http://en.wikipedia....rkeland_current

"Auroral Birkeland currents carry about 100,000 amperes during quiet times and more than 1 million amperes during geomagnetically disturbed times."

 

Space sure sounds neutral to me, how about you?

 

And yet Einstein devised his theory of relativity on a static universe, and does not even agree with you about the existence of Black Holes.

http://www.cscamm.um...hwarzschild.pdf

So, I can trust him or trust you, hmmm, which do I choose?

 

As a matter of fact please compare Schwarzschild metric with the one listed in wiki (or any modern textbook), tell me if they are the same???

http://en.wikipedia....rzschild_metric

 

They just hide the evidence against it in other places you are not likely to venture to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisotropic

 

"Physics Cosmologists use the term to describe the uneven temperature distribution of the cosmic microwave background radiation. There is evidence for a so-called "Axis of Evil"^[/url] in the early Universe that is at odds with the currently favored theory of rapid expansion after the Big Bang.

 

 

Edited August 7, 2012 by EMField

[David Levy]

Fred Hoyle is fully correct with his theory of steady state: by Wikipedia - "In steady state views,new matter is continuously created as the universe expands".

 

 

What could be the outcome of this highlight???

 

How it's effect the Big Bang Theory?

 

How can we explain the current shape of the universe and when was the starting date?

 

What about the dark matter & dark energy?

 

and many more...

[EMField]

I am not sure it is a steady state or expanding universe. I think it is simply a universe with no end that is in constant motion. There is no such thing as stationary anywhere in the universe, or a beginning point or edge or end to it. Such finite words applied to the universe have no meaning. How do you comprehend "everything" when no matter how far you could possibly travel there was only more? You can be sure the edge is not 14-20 billion light-years away, that is only the distance we can observe through all the intervening dust and plasma. According to relativity no matter where you were in the universe you would observe the same thing regardless of your velocity. So if one was on a highly red-shifted quasar and red-shift is due to velocity, then the quasar would appear normal to me, but all other objects would be redshifted depending on distance. So from a quasar, the Milky-way would appear to be highly red-shifted. Plasma red-shift depending on electron density much better explains relativity.

[David Levy]

Thanks EMField

 

 

Yes,I fully agree with you.

 

The Universe should be much bigger than what we see from here. Actually, if we had been at the edge of what we see today, we would probably not find there any edge.

 

Our history might give us some good indication. Think about Darwin.

 

Wikipedia: "Charles Robert Darwin, FRS(12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist. He established that all species of lifehave descended over time from common ancestors"

 

It is similar to the steady state theory. All what we see today have descended over time. I'm quite sure that Darwin would reject the big bang theory…

 

The steady state is the correct theory. Please be aware that the steady state theory does not give a full answer to what we see today. There must be some other companion theories which should complete this theory.

 

The spiral galaxies are the engines of the universe for mass production. But there are still many questions which we need to answer in order to understand the current shape of the universe.

Edited August 9, 2012 by David Levy

[alpha2cen]

We know CMB(cosmic microwave background) is an another evidence of Big Bang. Then, how to make CMB from Big Bang? Anyone knows about it?

[David Levy]

There is no contradiction between the steady state theory and CMB(cosmic microwave background)!!!

 

 

 

 

[alpha2cen]

There is no contradiction between the steady state theory and CMB(cosmic microwave background)!!!

 

 

 

 

 

Is it the origin of mass difference? How to make CMB from Big Bang?

Edited August 9, 2012 by alpha2cen

[imatfaal]

There is no contradiction between the steady state theory and CMB(cosmic microwave background)!!!

 

David,

 

If a theorist has shown how a steady state explanation can account for the CMB it is a post hoc rationalisation - the (non)existence of the CMB was posited as a test for the big bang theory; ie if the big bang is right there should be a left-over background radiation constant(ish) throughout the observable universe. Many years later this left over was experimentally discovered - it is the CMBR.

[David Levy]

Hi imatfaal

 

CMB– By Wikipedia: "In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation is thermal radiation filling the observable universe almost uniformly".

 

In one hand it is stated at Wikipedia: " Cosmic background radiation is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe".

 

On the other hand it is stated that it doesn't appear to be consistent with the big bang picture. wikipedia: "With the in creasingly precise data provided by WMAP, there have been a number of claims that the CMB suffers from anomalies, such as very large scale anisotropies, anomalous alignments, andnon-Gaussian distributions. The most longstanding of these is the low-lmultipole controversy. Even in the COBE map, it was observed that the quadrupole(l=2 spherical harmonic) has a low amplitude compared to the predictions of the big bang. Some observers have pointed out that the anisotropies in theWMAP data did not appear to be consistent with the big bang picture".

 

I assume that the scientists all over the world had invested years over years in CMB research. I do not even try to compete with them in five minutes.

 

Never the less, the basic steady state theory avoids the idea of Creation by assuming that the Universe has been expanding forever. The amount of the needed new matter would only be one atom per cubic meter per 100 years to match the expansion rate given by Hubble's constant. Fred Hoyle didn't give an explanation how and where this new matter would be created.

 

Now that we know that new matter is created in the center of each spiral galaxy in the universe, an update should be added to the basic steady state theory. This creation of the new matter must generate the CMB which we verify. This is a task that the scientists should take and confirm.

 

We also need to get answers to several critical questions which related to the current shape of the universe. But in any case,we have proved the basic element of the steady state theory. The main idia is that "all what we see today have descended over time" as Charles Robert Darwin had stated.

 

Therefore, the following steady state diagram is correct:

 

 

Edited August 9, 2012 by David Levy

[EMField]

There are questions as to whether the CMB is actually nothing more than the energy given off by our local cluster of galaxies. It certainly is not a settled issue as you will commonly hear. Currently they are investigating what is termed gamma-ray bursters, which from the data, may be coming from areas near our Sun's heliosphere and not from deep space. I believe there is already a theory being worked out that explains most things we observe, but research goes where the funding points, and although most of this theory is backed by laboratory experiments, cosmology tends to resist change. Just as it has in all shifts of cosmology from Newton to Einstein. Those supporting relativity had to battle to get it accepted, it did not happen overnight. Even so relativity did not replace Newtonian theory, merely added to it. The universe is complex and every time we think we have it all figured out new discovery's are made which need new fudges. I think it is time to rethink the whole thing. Technology has made it impossible with the new discoveries since the space age to continue onward without questioning the things we have taken for fact, when in reality they are far from it. Theories are constantly failing to meet observations. Within the last 20 years the data has called into question almost everything we have taken for granted.

Edited August 9, 2012 by EMField

[imatfaal]

Hi imatfaal

 

CMB– By Wikipedia: "In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation is thermal radiation filling the observable universe almost uniformly". In one hand it is stated at Wikipedia: " Cosmic background radiation is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe".

 

On the other hand it is stated that it doesn't appear to be consistent with the big bang picture. wikipedia: "With the in creasingly precise data provided by WMAP, there have been a number of claims that the CMB suffers from anomalies, such as very large scale anisotropies, anomalous alignments, andnon-Gaussian distributions. The most longstanding of these is the low-lmultipole controversy. Even in the COBE map, it was observed that the quadrupole(l=2 spherical harmonic) has a low amplitude compared to the predictions of the big bang. Some observers have pointed out that the anisotropies in theWMAP data did not appear to be consistent with the big bang picture".

 

I assume that the scientists all over the world had invested years over years in CMB research. I do not even try to compete with them in five minutes.

 

You missed out the bit of the Wiki-article which dealt with the possibility that the problems were more to do with the methods of foreground removal and inaccuracies. Even if the WMAP data can be seen as at minor variance with some aspects of BBT - it still is at complete odds with SST. Read the Wikipage on the SST . Do not cleave to a debunked and worthless theory - there is so much out there that is still unknown and to be learnt (from my perspective) and to be discovered (from the cosmologists view)

 

Never the less, the basic steady state theory avoids the idea of Creation by assuming that the Universe has been expanding forever. The amount of the needed new matter would only be one atom per cubic meter per 100 years to match the expansion rate given by Hubble's constant. Fred Hoyle didn't give an explanation how and where this new matter would be created. Now that we know that new matter is created in the center of each spiral galaxy in the universe, an update should be added to the basic steady state theory. This creation of the new matter must generate the CMB which we verify. This is a task that the scientists should take and confirm. We also need to get answers to several critical questions which related to the current shape of the universe. But in any case,we have proved the basic element of the steady state theory. The main idia is that "all what we see today have descended over time" as Charles Robert Darwin had stated.

we have a theory that matches the facts and makes correct predictions - without all the extraneous ideas required by SST. Why should the creation of new matter create a CMB which corresponds exactly with a light of ultraviolet wavelength predicted at the surface of last scattering stretched and red-shifted by exactly the right amount to microwave; this was all predicted before it was found.

 

/diagram snipped

 

The measurement of SN1a luminosity vs redshift matches a universe that expanded at a decelerating rate due to action of mass till it passed a certain universal density and then started a period driven a period of accelerated expansion due to action of dark energy no longer being counteracted by the amount of mass per unit (this was not expected). We do NOT receive data that supports the idea that the universe is in a steady state.

 

There are questions as to whether the CMB is actually nothing more than the energy given off by our local cluster of galaxies. It certainly is not a settled issue as you will commonly hear. Currently they are investigating what is termed gamma-ray bursters, which from the data, may be coming from areas near our Sun's heliosphere and not from deep space. I believe there is already a theory being worked out that explains most things we observe, but research goes where the funding points, and although most of this theory is backed by laboratory experiments, cosmology tends to resist change. Just as it has in all shifts of cosmology from Newton to Einstein. Those supporting relativity had to battle to get it accepted, it did not happen overnight. Even so relativity did not replace Newtonian theory, merely added to it. The universe is complex and every time we think we have it all figured out new discovery's are made which need new fudges. I think it is time to rethink the whole thing. Technology has made it impossible with the new discoveries since the space age to continue onward without questioning the things we have taken for fact, when in reality they are far from it. Theories are constantly failing to meet observations. Within the last 20 years the data has called into question almost everything we have taken for granted.

 

The best and most predictive theory is the left-over red-shifted radiation of the era of last scattering. It is settled - it might be wrong - but it is settled.

 

Gamma-ray bursts within the heliosphere - damn! where? love to see citations for that.

 

CMBR and BBT was very much the radical idea within some physicists living memory - that it was investigated and experiment evidence found kinda disproves that cosmology only follows the path of least change. Einstein's changes swept physics. Yes the data has challenged almost everything - which is only a problem if cosmology is dogmatic and stuck in the mud; however, as the subject and those researchers involved are quite clearly NOT dogmatic and are always willing to embrace new data then it just makes cosmology exciting.

[David Levy]

Hi imatfaal

 

In this topic there is solid evidence that spiral galaxy should create a new matter at the center of the galaxy.

 

This idea fits perfectly with Darwin's approach and meets the basic element in the steady state theory.

 

It's clear that the scientists which support the Big Bang theory will reject it.

 

With regards to the CMB; (I'm not an expert, so please correct me as needed)

 

The CMB is thermal radiation filling the observable universe almost uniformly.

 

At the time of the discussion between the steady state theory and the big bang this CMB fits better with the big bang theory.

 

Never the less, This thermal radiation might be justified by some other new concepts and theories. Hence, the CMB by itself is not a direct evidence for the Big Bang Theory.

 

As ananalog point of view, it is similar to shadow.

For example, lets think on a bird and a man. If we see a shadow of a bird, then by definition it's not a man. But, does it mean that we see a real bird???

 

With regards to the following highlight at Wikipedia: "..The anisotropies in the WMAP data did not appear to be consistent with the big bang picture" your reply was: " You missed out the bit of the Wiki-article which dealt with the possibility that the problems were more to do with the methods of foreground removal and inaccuracies"

 

1. I couldn't find this article. Please advice web site.

 

2. As you have mentioned – Possibility – So, there is still a possibility that it will not fit to the big bang picture…

 

However;

 

Now we know the contribution of the spiral galaxies to mass creation.

 

From this point, it's up to the scientists to decide what should be the outcome of this topic.

Edited August 11, 2012 by David Levy

[alpha2cen]

How to make a nucleus of the galaxy at the beginning? Do you have any good idea about making energy condensate in the space? Big Bang theory tells cooling makes highly condensed state.

Unknown tachyon phenomena!! What is the evidence? I do not understand the relationship.